but, wind patterns DO alter rotation, to a degree.
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:36 PM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the pool players won't fall over simply because you choose the ball
> as your frame of reference throughout the process. You have to choose a
> frame a reference which is inertial (at rest or moving with constant
> velocity) throughout the entire process, i.e. before, during and after
> the collision.
>
> Anyway this is not really where I wanted to end up because I find myself
> in agreement with newtonian relativity. lol
>
> It is the ahistorical aspect of newtonian relativity which bothers me.
> When I stand on shore and see a ship sail by, and I know that it was
> set in motion by the wind. Also a person on the ship knows
> the shore was not set in motion by the wind.
>
> Harry
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
>
>> if you are choosing that ball as a frame of refference, then that
>> would be true. The point of relativity is that there is no central
>> frame of refference, just what you choose. its not conceit, its
>> reality.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > That is true but that is not what I mean.
>> >
>> > Imagine you are the ball and you are resting wrt to the table and
>> the> earth. A cue or another ball hits you so you move at 1 m/s wrt
>> to the
>> > table. Would you be so self-centred as to claim you are still
>> resting,> and that the table and the earth are now moving under you
>> at 1 m/s?
>> >
>> > If such a conceit were true the pool players standing around the
>> table> would have been flung off their feet as the earth abruptly
>> accelerated> under them from 0 m/s to 1 m/s.
>> >
>> > Harry
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: leaking pen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 12:43 pm
>> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
>> >
>> >> Yes. It is more the opposite, but every step you take, you push
>> the>> Earth, and she pushes back at you. The Earth pushes a hell of
>> a lot
>> >> harder, but you DO have an effect on the motion of the Earth,
>> however>> infintesimal, with each step.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> > From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:18 am
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Chinese building "space drive" unit
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> OrionWorks wrote:
>> >> >> > I bet this device look familiar to a few vorts!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > See:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/chinese-buildin.html
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Uh -- not me; looks sort of like an antique picture tube, maybe,
>> >> >> but I
>> >> >> don't recognize it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I notice Emdrive hasn't gotten as far as running a spell checker
>> >> over>> their front page, which doesn't automatically fill one with
>> >> >> confidence.
>> >> >> From the description, it appears to be a microwave oven.
>> >> Surprising>> that they claim it will fly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I had one other comment on the website. On the theory page,
>> >> they say:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > ... Einstein's Special Law of Relativity in which separate
>> >> frames of
>> >> >> > reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the
>> speed>> >> of light.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is absolutely false. SR does *not* require that you must
>> >> apply>> "separate frames of reference" when approaching the speed
>> >> of light.
>> >> >> In
>> >> >> fact any analysis which relies on total momentum or energy
>> >> *must* be
>> >> >> carried out entirely within a *single* reference frame or else
>> >> you'll>> end up with nonsensical results (just as they have
>> >> apparently done
>> >> >> here).
>> >> >> In the FAQs they say:
>> >> >> > Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an
>> >> open>> > system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate
>> >> frames of
>> >> >> > reference.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is complete nonsense. The "reference frame" chosen is
>> >> based on
>> >> >> what makes it easiest to solve a particular problem. There's
>> >> nothing>> magical about relativity theory here, nor is there any
>> >> mystical>> significance to the term "reference frame"; *exactly*
>> >> the same concept
>> >> >> exists in ordinary Newtonian mechanics.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> When a pool player strikes a ball, in the frame of the table,
>> >> the cue
>> >> >> and the player's arm have significant momentum just before the
>> >> ball is
>> >> >> hit. Afterwards, the table, player, and cue have zero momentum
>> >> in the
>> >> >> *table's* reference frame. And yet, the ball has zero momentum
>> >> in the
>> >> >> *ball's* reference frame, too! So, where did the momentum go?
>> >> >> Answer:
>> >> >> you need to do the momentum budget using a *single* frame,
>> not a
>> >> >> different frame for each physical object! (But you get to pick
>> >> which>> frame to use.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I have difficulty even accepting newtonian relativity.
>> >> > Do you think by a flick of the wrist the mass of the table
>> (and the
>> >> > earth!) have gone from being at rest wrt to the cue ball, to
>> >> being in
>> >> > motion wrt to the cue ball?
>> >> >
>> >> > Harry
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
